Suicide
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I think that a person who commits suicide can be saved. Do you think that 1 Corinthians 10:13 presents a problem to this view? The verse says, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
To begin, we can say two things about suicide. First, since the biblical definition of murder is the deliberate termination of a human life without God's preceptive approval, this must mean that suicide is equivalent to murder. Second, for the one who commits this act, it is even more final than if he were to murder someone else. Since the murderer is also the one who is murdered, not only is the life terminated, but there is no opportunity for repentance and restoration. Therefore, we must conclude that suicide entails much spiritual danger.
Now, I have no personal aversion to the idea that all those who commit suicide are in fact non-Christians, regardless of what they claim to believe. If all those who commit suicide are sent to hell, then so be it. My emotions do not make me prefer one position or the other. That said, at this time I am unconvinced that this is indeed the case. In other words, it seems that it is possible for a genuine believer to kill himself.
The reason for suicide might be a factor. Is the person insane? Does the person suffer from extreme depression, or constant and prolonged sexual or physical abuse with no apparent way of escape? Is he facing a kind of pressure or danger so extreme that he thinks suicide is the only option? Or, is he a soldier or government agent who is captured by the enemy, and who thinks he must resort to suicide rather than to risk revealing secret information that might jeopardize his country?
I am not asserting that these factors grant moral permission for suicide, but only that these are relevant questions on the way to the answer, and that even if most cases of suicide are sinful, it is possible that some cases are not. Perhaps an insane man is just as guilty as anyone. This is something that we need to discuss. It is sometimes difficult for outsiders to judge. However, it seems that the situation with the soldier or agent comes under a different category of reasons, and much more likely to be acceptable, if it is indeed acceptable. It could be considered an act of willing sacrifice in a warfare situation, and as such, it is very different from a person who kills himself just because he is depressed, or because he is a confused teenager, or because he owes people too much money.
As for 1 Corinthians 10:13, it does not contradict the view that a believer could commit suicide and be saved. This is because any sin is a sin against 1 Corinthians 10:13. It just means that there is never an excuse for sin, including suicide. But we still often sin, and we receive forgiveness for it through faith in Jesus Christ. Likewise, insofar as it is sinful, it might mean that suicide is never necessary, and it is wrong for a person to think that it is his only option. But again, no sin is ever necessary, or a person's only option. And if there is a distinction between sinful and non-sinful suicide, then the verse means that sinful suicide is never necessary.
Some attempted biblical arguments are far from conclusive.
For example, the suicide of Judas is insufficient to establish its sinfulness. He sinned in betraying Christ, sinned again in failing to repent, and then sinned once more in murdering himself. But there is nothing here to tell us that suicide itself is sinful — we know that it is sinful from other parts of Scripture. There is nothing here to tell us whether a person who commits suicide is necessarily exposed as an unbeliever and condemned to hell because he commits suicide. Or, related to this, although we know that Judas is reprobate, there is nothing here to tell us that only a reprobate person, destined for hell, will commit suicide.
On the other hand, neither can we say that Samson's example justifies suicide, for the reason that it might not be suicide at all. By his final demonstration of strength, "he killed many more when he died than while he lived" (Judges 16:30). In other words, he did more to fulfill his mission in this one act, which he knew would kill him as well, than in his previous exploits. Would he have killed himself if he knew that no Philistines would have died because of it? And if he had really wanted to commit suicide as such, why did he not do it much sooner? He was in captivity long enough for his hair to grow long again. He could have killed himself at any moment during this period just by biting his tongue and bleeding to death. Yes, he knew he was going to die (v. 30), but he stated his intention two verses earlier when he said, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." His main purpose was to kill the Philistines. He died in combat, fulfilling his mission better than anything that he did before. Thus it is difficult to call this suicide as such.
We should continue to examine biblical arguments on the topic. In any case, even if we say it is possible that a genuine believer might commit suicide, we must insist that it remains a spiritually dangerous act, and we must do our utmost to warn people against it and turn them from it. Of course, the best long-term solution is not for a person to wait until he reaches the point of suicide, but for him to daily exercise in faith and godliness, and to obtain the assistance, counsel, and encouragement of a Christian community.
When counseling those who consider suicide, we must have compassion regarding the problems they are facing; however, we must also deal with them firmly about their attitude.
To illustrate, abortionists ask, "Should women not have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies?" Rather than saying, "Yes, but…," we must answer, "Of course not!" God is the one who dictates what they must do with their bodies, and how they must treat their children's bodies in their wombs. The truth is that we do not have absolute authority over our own bodies even relative to other people, since God has also defined the principles that govern various human relationships. For example, parents have the right to physically punish their disobedient children, and those who are married possess conjugal rights over their spouses, whether men or women.
Accordingly, those contemplating suicide must learn that they have no final rights over their own bodies, since they are God's property. This is true for believers in a special sense, since Scripture calls them God's treasured possession. But whether they are Christians or non-Christians, unless they have God's preceptive permission — that is, unless Scripture approves — they have no moral right to kill themselves.
Moreover, we must affirm that if a certain person who commits suicide is nevertheless saved, it is solely due to the sovereign grace of God, who chose him for salvation, and the atoning blood of Christ, who paid for all his sins, including what seems to be a final act of rebellion and unbelief.
Whatever we do, we must not minimize the danger associated with suicide, for even if there are exceptional cases in which "suicide" is permitted, these are indeed exceptions (war, sacrifice, maybe extreme insanity, and so on). We can say with confidence that even if suicide is not sinful in all cases, it is sinful in most cases. And even if suicide is sometimes committed by some genuine believers, most of those who commit suicide are unbelievers. Therefore, most people who commit suicide are sent to hell, and there they will suffer everlasting conscious extreme torture. This time there will be no escape.
Recommended
The Sermon on the Mount
Samson and His Faith
Acupuncture, Dim-Mak, and Science
The following is an edited email correspondence.
What is your view on acupuncture? Do you have anything against it?
I have not done enough study on the topic to make a definitive verdict or to accept someone else's verdict. Right now I have a generally negative view toward it. One reason is that it is based on theories of "chi" flow and energy points in the body. Related to acupuncture is "dim-mak," which is based on the same theories but can be used to inflict injury, death, and other effects. Although exaggerated in the movies, it is an actual teaching in the martial arts.
The question brings to mind a broader issue that is relevant to all other related questions, and that is the standards by which Christians use to determine whether a given practice, exercise, or treatment is spiritually and morally acceptable. In what I have come across, it seems that Christians have a surprisingly accepting attitude toward acupuncture just because it is said that there is scientific data to support its effectiveness, so that one does not have to accept the chi theory (or other theories related to mysticism and false religion) to embrace the treatment itself.
However, if we have made science the standard by which we judge whether something is allowed by God, then our Christian identity has already suffered tremendous devastation. Since when is the approval of western medical science the standard by which Christians must operate? If this line of reasoning is permitted, then the floodgates are opened to almost all the practices that are either originally associated with false religions or that are in other ways spiritually dubious. These would include yoga, meditation, hypnosis, mind control, subliminal therapy, and all sorts of psychic and occult practices. Even necromancy is given a scientific explanation by some people who claim to possess this kind of data to support their view. In fact, it is precisely because Christians have accepted this line of reasoning that many churches today are centers for the occult. They would have been stoned to death under Moses.
One response is that the science connected with some of these things are really pseudo-science, so that science does not in fact justify all of them. However, even given the accepted standards of science, there is pseudo-science in every area of investigation, not to mention outright fraud in even the most serious areas of study. Refuting some claims does not refute all claims, especially when some of these scientists carry credentials that are just as legitimate as that of their critics, and work with the most reputable universities and institutions. Also, at least in my own research, many attempted refutations are based on the prior assumption that the theories and claims under investigation are impossible. Of course, one can always refute the scientific method and scientific reasoning themselves (as I do), so that the claims using such method and reasoning are refuted all at once. This puts science in its place and renders it impotent to make any pronouncement regarding the nature of reality. But here we are referring to disputes among scientists who do not doubt their own method and reasoning.
As a side note, we are not interested in destroying science, but we are interested in humbling it, and to put the discipline and its practitioners in their place. And in their place, they have no authority to make any pronouncement regarding the nature of reality. This authority belongs to divine revelation alone. This is not because we are fideists in the sense that we think faith and reason contradict each other, and that we must side with faith against reason. But it is because we are rationalists in the literal sense of the term (not the historical or popular sense), and we know that the biblical is also the rational. On the other hand, we must dismiss the idea that science represents rationality. In fact, we have repeatedly demonstrated that science is systematic irrationalism, committing the triple fallacy of empiricism, induction, and asserting the consequent. Therefore, it should be the last in line to make so-called rational objections to Christianity.
Moreover, even if we ignore the above for a moment, in this context it does not matter if a claim is supported by pseudo-science or "real" science, since our complaint is against the kind of thinking, so common among Christians, that uses science as the final standard, looking to it for permission on moral issues and to settle spiritual questions. So, the point is that just because western medical science claims that acupuncture might work does not automatically make it acceptable for Christians. In fact, it does almost nothing in bringing us closer to that conclusion.
Perhaps the common way of thinking is partly due to a self-centered bias — it is to think that whatever we are relying on must already be morally and biblically acceptable. Many professing believers not only trust science (human investigation and speculation — in other words, they trust themselves) more than revelation (God's pronouncements and disclosures), but they allow science to determine how they interpret revelation.
There are at least two reasons why so many are eager to reconcile faith and science. They suppose that science is the very picture of rationality and precision, but we have shown elsewhere that it is pervasively and exhaustively fallacious. Some suppose that the scientific method follows from the cultural mandate — but it does not. Just because there is a cultural mandate does not automatically mean that the scientific method follows from it, or that scientific investigation is the way to carry it out, or that the scientific method is rational, or that scientific theories and conclusions have anything to do with the true nature of reality. Again, this is the supreme arrogance of defining spiritual, moral, and rational perfection by our currently accepted beliefs and practices.
This is analogous to how many western believers think when it comes to politics and economics — that is, whatever is American must be Christian as well, so that we proceed to judge whether a theory of politics or economics is moral by whether it is American, which we assume to be Christian. It is also common for some western believers to read the Bible in such a manner, so that they tend to see democracy and capitalism, in the exact form that they are accustomed to, everywhere in Scripture. One example of this error is Grudem's Business for the Glory of God.
Recommended
Presuppositional Confrontations
God Passive Only Relative to Himself
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I read your article on free will offerings, and once again I thank the Lord for using you to refute the false doctrine of human freedom relative to God. As one who is in total agreement with your teachings on this subject (having already studied many of your works), I thought that perhaps when time permits you could address Acts 14:16 where Paul, speaking of God, says, "In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways" (NASB). This is the verse I have been confronted with the most by free will advocates.
Although I have not yet written anything that directly addresses Acts 14:16, I have written an extensive exposition on Acts 17, which contains a similar statement. I suggest that you look this up from my Presuppositional Confrontations.
Then, in my Commentary on Ephesians, I mention the correct interpretation for verses that seem to speak of God's actions in a passive way ("hand them over," "pass them by," etc.). I show that they are passive only relative to something that God has already actively established. That is, God is never passive relative to men — his decrees are never fulfilled by bare permission, nor does he "pass them by" for anything, as if men could even decide or perform evil by their own power. Rather, whenever Scripture speaks of God's action as passive, it invariably refers to something that God has already actively established, only that he is allowing to stand what he himself has done.
In other words, whenever Scripture says that God "allows" Y (or any equivalent expression), invariably we find that Y is the necessary consequence of X, and that other passages would say that it is God who directly causes X. And like everything else in creation, even the relationship between X and Y is something directly established and sustained by God. Therefore, it is really God who actively and directly causes both X and Y.
Again, this means that, metaphysically speaking, we must not distance God from evil (and thus assign to some other power a degree of control over creation on the metaphysical level), since this necessarily results in dualism, which is pagan rather than biblical. I regret that this pagan tendency is strong even in Reformed theology and popular Calvinism. In connection to this, the unbiblical and incoherent doctrines of compatibilism, passive reprobation, conditional reprobation, and so on, must also be rejected.
It must be remembered that, when I refer of God's direct control over all things evil, I am speaking of metaphysics, not ethical approval. While metaphysics has to do with power, ethics has to do with precept. When these two are confused, then one would think that what God forbids to man by precept, he himself cannot then cause by divine power. But these two things are in different categories altogether.
– Recommended –
From vincentcheung.com:
"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)
More than a Potter (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Creatures Cannot Initiate Motion
From rmiweb.org:
Definition of "Worldview"
How would you define a "worldview"? What is the best definition your have seen or have come up with?
Please see Systematic Theology, p. 37, and Ultimate Questions, p. 17-18.
Prayer and Righteousness
Lately I have been studying the topic of law and grace. I revisited your book Sermon on the Mount and benefited tremendously from it. I have a question regarding imputed righteousness and the effectiveness of prayer. Am I right in thinking that we have confidence when we pray not because of how "righteous" we are in the sense of how sinless and holy we have been in our actions, but instead, we base our confidence in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us?
Please see my Prayer and Revelation, chapter 8.
Extraterrestrial Life
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I have come across some materials on the evidence for aliens, UFOs, etc., and I wonder if the Scripture says anything on the topic. Some Christians argue that because the Bible does not explicitly deny the existence of extraterrestrial life, we can at least regard it as a possibility. But how can this be reconciled with the Bible? Maybe it cannot be reconciled with the Fall of man in Eden, but is this a strong argument against the existence of UFOs?
As far as I can tell, the existence of extraterrestrial life does not contradict anything in Scripture, so there is nothing to reconcile, since there is no conflict and no contradiction. The existence of extraterrestrial life has no direct relevance to Eden and the Fall, so again, there is no contradiction, and nothing to reconcile.
Just because someone connects these things does not mean that they are in fact related. For example, I have read the argument that if there are creatures on other planets, then they would fall into sin just like man did in Eden, and God would have to send his Son to die for every group that has sinned. Since God would not make his Son endure such humiliation and agony over and over again, this must mean that there are no creatures on other planets. There are variations of this argument, but the line of reasoning is the same. In any case, it is absurd, since every premise is a groundless assertion, and every step involves a logical leap. Why would all life necessarily fall into sin? Why would God necessarily want to save any or all of them? Why would God necessarily refuse to allow the Son to endure repeated suffering?
We already know that there are other types of creatures besides man and other earthly creatures (animals, insects, etc.), since we know that there are angels and demons. We also know that God does not choose to save all kinds of creatures that fall into sin, since he has provided no salvation for fallen angels.
Then, Scripture does provide an indication that there might be other types of life besides angels, demons, man, and other earthly creatures. One possible example is in Revelation 4:6-8:
Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."
If these creatures are not to be classed with angels, and if they are not symbolic, then they are altogether another class of creatures. But what we still cannot say for sure is if they ever visit earth or get involved in man's affairs on earth.
I have also come across those who allege that UFOs are transportation devices for angels (both elect and fallen), and that there are references to them in the Bible, such as the chariot that took away Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), or the "whirling wheels" in Ezekiel (10:13, also 1:16-17). However, the arguments are unconvincing. It seems that they are reading their conceptions of extraterrestrial technology into Scripture, and they also fail to answer sensible alternative interpretations. But again, even if these are references to UFOs, they do not upset any traditional Christian doctrine.
Therefore, at this time my position is that (1) We cannot be sure whether there is or is not life elsewhere besides earth (except angels and demons, etc.), and (2) Whether there is life elsewhere or not, it presents no problem for Christianity and no contradiction against the Bible, so that there is nothing for us to reconcile at all. I remain open to biblical arguments for or against extraterrestrial life, but those that I have examined so far are either inconclusive or clearly fallacious.
Although everything about God's creation deserves some of our attention, this topic is comparatively insignificant. So what if God has created other creatures? And so what if he has not? It might be interesting to know, but it has no direct relevance to any central doctrine or ethical issue. We would believe and behave the same way as Christians either way.
The stakes are raised when we are dealing with UFO cults, that is, cults whose teachings are centered around the existence of extraterrestrial life, and mankind's relationship with them. But the solution is not to attempt a refutation of the very existence of extraterrestrial life based on flimsy arguments. Empirical arguments are especially useless — we cannot refute what other people claim to have seen on the basis that we have not seen the same thing. Instead, the biblical solution is to proclaim the sovereignty and superiority of Christ, for whether or not there is extraterrestrial life, Christ is the creator and ruler of them all. Therefore, the existence of extraterrestrial life would not validate the teachings of UFO cults, since whether or not there is extraterrestrial life, all Christian doctrines remain intact, including God's demand for faith and repentance, so that man may receive salvation through Jesus Christ.
Recommended
Limited Atonement
The following is taken from an email correspondence.
What do you think about the term "particular redemption" in place of "limited atonement"? The other day I heard another theologian speak on the subject, and he stated that "limited atonement" was not the best term to use. He did not go into detail, so I thought I would ask if you think that there might be a problem with the term.
Please look this up in my Systematic Theology, p. 137-138. For an exposition of the doctrine beyond my remarks on the term, read all the way through p. 146. Also see Commentary on Ephesians, p. 34-38, or in Chosen in Christ, p. 27-31, for an exposition on the doctrine.
Typical Reformed Teaching
The following is a revised email correspondence.
In Godliness with Contentment (p. 33), you write, "Since the Bible teaches that everything has been foreordained by God, this means that all events, including human decisions, come under this category." I am unsure if typical Reformed teaching espouses this. If it does, then it would be inconsistent for them not to embrace active reprobation. On the other hand, when I mentioned that God foreordains everything, my friend expressed the concern of many Christians when he responded, "If God foreordains everything, does that mean that he also wills us to sin?" Of course, we have already discussed this issue and you have already addressed it, but it seems a very difficult concept to embrace.
(1) I am unsure if typical Reformed teaching espouses this. If it does, then it would be inconsistent for them not to embrace active reprobation.
Typical Reformed teaching, or what I call popular Calvinism or inconsistent Calvinism, disagrees with me on some points. It does teach that God is sovereign over human decisions, but it is inconsistent in saying that these human decisions are still somehow free. See what I say against "compatibilism" in The Author of Sin. Note chapters 4-10, 15, 18, and 19. Also see relevant sections in my Systematic Theology and Commentary on Ephesians.
A special section from Commentary on Ephesians has been released separately as Chosen in Christ. It has its own table of contents to aid comprehension. In it, I cite liberally from Luther's The Bondage of the Will, showing that popular Calvinism is in fact far weaker than Luther's view regarding God's sovereignty over all things, including sin and evil. In fact, several of the harsh rebukes that Luther unleashes against Erasmus can be directly applied to popular Calvinism without any modification. I also argue against passive reprobation in this section.
Yes, you are right in that they are inconsistent, and Arminians often correctly exploit this in debate. When inconsistent Calvinists are challenged on this, they often say that we must not judge God's word by "human reason" or to speculate beyond what God has revealed. But they use logic only when it is convenient for them, and it is not speculation just to state exactly what God has revealed, that he is the righteous direct ruler over all things, including sin and evil.
(2) On the other hand, when I mentioned that God foreordains everything, my fellowship leader expresses the concern of many Christians when he responded, "If God foreordains everything, does that mean that he also wills us to sin?"
Of course. There are many biblical passages that explicitly teach this, only some of which are included in "The Problem of Evil" and our other publications. Please review them as necessary.
(3) Of course, we have already discussed this issue and you have already addressed it, but it seems a very difficult concept to embrace.
It is definitely difficult — the sinful or unrenewed mind never naturally agrees with God. But logically speaking, and to the extent that the doctrine has been revealed in Scripture, it is one of the easiest to understand and defend. Mystery appears only beyond what God has revealed. But what he has revealed on this subject is clear, understandable, and undeniably true.
Here when you say that it is "a very difficult concept to embrace," you are referring to a subjective resistance that has little relevance to whether something is true. It has no bearing on the force of an argument or position. Some people find it hard to accept that God would create a hell and send people there. Some people find it hard to accept that there is a God in the first place. But both rationally and emotionally, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would resist these teachings, including the doctrine of hell. But Scripture tells me why they resist, and it is because of sin.
– Recommended –
From vincentcheung.com:
"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)
More than a Potter (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Creatures Cannot Initiate Motion
From rmiweb.org:
God's Holiness and Evil Thoughts
The following is an email correspondence dealing with God's absolute sovereignty. The question has been slightly altered to protect the person's privacy, and I have revised my answer to make it more clear and readable. The title comes from the subject line of the person's message.
A friend of mine raised two related questions about your view of divine sovereignty. He does not use email, and so I thought I would ask you these questions on his behalf: (1) How can God actively cause and control the evil thoughts of unregenerate men without nullifying his holiness? (2) That is, isn't God thinking the evil thoughts before he causes men to think them?
If you have read very much of my materials, you should be able to answer these two questions yourself, since I have discussed this topic so many times and in so many ways. These two questions are no different than those that I have addressed when writing about "the author of sin" and "the problem of evil," so please review these materials for more details.
First, I am guessing that this person implies that my view is foreign to the Bible, so that the questions are raised against my view in particular and not against the Bible itself. Coming from a Christian, this indicates ignorance and prejudice. I am not using these words as insults but to label the problem areas.
There are numerous passages in the Bible indicating that sin is God's idea, both in general and in particular instances. Review my article, "The Problem of Evil," for biblical examples. Given the fact that it is the Bible that teaches this, the person who asks these questions against my view is ignorant of and/or prejudiced against those passages teaching that it is God who devises evil against people and that he decrees that people should commit certain sins so that they would be judged and destroyed, or otherwise be disciplined or to further some other purpose. People often disassociate a teaching in the Bible that they dislike from the person who teaches it from the Bible, and then they make the pretense of attacking the person for the teaching, when in reality they are attacking the Bible itself.
It would make no difference to the questions even if God were to "passively" cause evil (whatever that means) — since the idea of evil would still originate in God. The only way out is to say that God has no concept of evil at all, and that evil must be wholly attributed to another entity. This is the heresy of dualism, and the logical conclusion that God is not the author of sin.
Second, the questions are incomplete. They make an assumption that the person fails to justify or even mention. Since it is so ingrained, he is probably unaware of it. He asks, "How can God actively cause and control the evil thoughts of unregenerate men without nullifying his holiness?" But what exactly is the problem? The question does not tell us. The assumption seems to be that to directly control evil is to commit evil — to cause sin is to commit sin, and to author sin is to be a sinner. But where in the Bible do we find this?
Evil is defined by God, not by man, and unless God says that for him to directly control evil is to commit evil, then for him to directly control evil is not to commit evil. It is not up to man to say otherwise. In fact, the person who asks the question has made himself above God. To paraphrase, the question is really, "How can God remain holy if he does something that is against my standard of what it means for God to be holy?" I literally shudder at the very idea that someone would dare think this way, but this is what the question implies.
Then, as for the question, "That is, isn't God thinking the evil thoughts before he causes men to think them?" My first reaction is, "So what?" The same is true with foreknowledge (here the word means prescience, and not the biblical meaning of foreordination). Are we now saying that God cannot foreknow any evil in order to remain holy? If so, does God know about evil after someone has done it? Wouldn't that taint his holiness as well? Imagine all the thoughts of murder, rape, perjury, theft, and countless other sins that are in God's mind! In this sense, God has even more evil thoughts in his mind than Satan himself. Scripture and I don't think that this is a problem, but the question implies that it is. Do you see how unbiblical and even sinister this line of reasoning is? But this is the common way of thinking. People don't realize how inconsistent and wicked it is to disallow to God something that he never forbids to himself.
Of course, with foreknowledge, when God thinks thoughts of murder and rape, it is because he possesses information about how his creatures would violate his laws in these ways. It is certainly not that God would commit murder and rape. (If murder is to kill someone without God's approval, then God could kill anyone without committing murder, since he always has his own approval, so that the concept of murder does not apply. As for rape, God is non-corporeal and non-sexual, so neither does it apply.) But if this is a satisfactory explanation for foreknowledge, then it is also satisfactory for the active ordination and causation of sin. It is not that God would commit these sins, but that he would actively cause his creatures to do them. And — here is the important point — there is no revealed moral law and no revelation about his nature saying that he could not or would not do this. The problem occurs only when man invents the premise and imposes it on God, and in doing so, actually thinks that he is protecting God's holiness!
Third, if we are against the idea that God actively causes evil, what does it mean when we say that he passively decrees or causes it? Yes, you can say it, but does it mean anything? Or is it nonsense? Ask someone to explain it and prove it. Bust through the standard slogans, go deeper, and see what you get. How is it metaphysically possible to infallibly ordain something and not cause it? And how is it metaphysically possible to unfailingly cause something, but do it passively? How is it possible to ordain the precise types and numbers of all sins, and the ways that they would be performed, so that all things must turn out as he has ordained, without using any active power to bring it about? How it is possible for God to merely permit evil without causing it when he is the one who sustains all things, moment by moment? You see, either we must attribute to man a metaphysical status and power that the Bible says he does not have — that is, the power of self-existence and self-cause, thus making man into God — or we must say that God actively causes all things.
Not everyone is oblivious to the inconsistency, but instead of deducing their theology from the Bible, they appeal to "mystery" in order to hold on to their inconsistency. The view that I espouse has no mystery and no inconsistency. People just don't like it because it is against what they have imposed upon God. Moreover, if they can appeal to mystery whenever they want, why can't I just say mystery, mystery, mystery over and over until people leave me alone? Somehow their mystery is superior to my clarity. What the Bible clearly tells us is not mystery, but revelation. The appeal to mystery is often a diversion from the fact that one sinfully refuses to accept what the Bible plainly reveals.
In short, the basic answer is that to cause evil is different from to commit evil. To cause evil refers to a metaphysical relationship, while to commit evil refers to a violation of divine moral law. For it to be wrong for God to cause evil, he must put in place a self-imposed moral law stating that it is wrong for him to cause evil. If he does not do this, then he has not defined it as evil. Rather, precisely because God is righteous, all that he does is righteous by definition. Therefore, it is righteous for him to cause evil whenever he wishes. And it is evil to oppose or to question him in this. To put this another way, the question skips a premise — or, it assumes a premise that is either unjustified or not mentioned at all. Namely, it is the assumption that for the creator to cause a creature to perform evil is for the creator himself to perform evil. Not only is this view illogical, but it is blasphemous.
The topic is very educational and revealing. It exposes how common it is for us to dictate to God how he must behave — he must adhere to our standard in order to remain what he says he is! Just look through all the theological publications in church history. It is almost unanimous that God cannot be "the author of sin" — but none of them can tell you why, even if some of them mention the unjustified and unbiblical assertion that for him to cause evil would be the same as to commit evil. No one in church history has ever been able to prove this premise, and few even try.
– Recommended –
From vincentcheung.com:
"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)
More than a Potter (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Creatures Cannot Initiate Motion
From rmiweb.org:
The Best Physician
The following is taken from Morning and Evening by Charles Spurgeon.
"But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell Him of her" (Mark 1:30).
Very interesting is this little peep into the house of the Apostolic Fisherman. We see at once that household joys and cares are no hindrance to the full exercise of ministry, nay, that since they furnish an opportunity for personally witnessing the Lord's gracious work upon one's own flesh and blood, they may even instruct the teacher better than any other earthly discipline. Papists and other sectaries may decry marriage, but true Christianity and household life agree well together.
Peter's house was probably a poor fisherman's hut, but the Lord of Glory entered it, lodged in it, and wrought a miracle in it. Should our little book be read this morning in some very humble cottage, let this fact encourage the inmates to seek the company of King Jesus. God is oftener in little huts than in rich palaces. Jesus is looking round your room now, and is waiting to be gracious to you. Into Simon's house sickness had entered, fever in a deadly form had prostrated his mother-in-law, and as soon as Jesus came they told Him of the sad affliction, and He hastened to the patient's bed.
Have you any sickness in the house this morning? You will find Jesus by far the best physician, go to Him at once and tell Him all about the matter. Immediately lay the case before Him. It concerns one of His people, and therefore will not be trivial to Him. Observe, that at once the Saviour restored the sick woman; none can heal as He does. We may not make sure that the Lord will at once remove all disease from those we love, but we may know that believing prayer for the sick is far more likely to be followed by restoration than anything else in the world; and where this avails not, we must meekly bow to His will by whom life and death are determined. The tender heart of Jesus waits to hear our griefs, let us pour them into His patient ear.
Recommended
Healing and Unbelief
Cessationism and Rebellion
Cessationism and Speaking in Tongues
Biblical Healing
Prayer and Revelation
Faith to Move Mountains
First Peter Released, and Some Miscellaneous Comments
My Commentary on First Peter has been completed. I thank those of you who have persevered daily with me as we studied through the text of this epistle. The full commentary is now available in PDF for free download, and in paperback form for purchase.
PDF File (8.5 x 11 = 183 pages). Our other downloadable materials are available HERE and HERE.
Paperback (6 x 9 = 302 pages). Our other printed materials are available HERE. As always, we forgo all royalties for our books in order to minimize your costs. You only pay for production and shipping.
Under our copyright policy, you are permitted to print, copy, and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for any ministry purpose, such as for your church, study group, or personal outreach.
But please cite the source, and do not alter the content or present the materials as your own. I mention this because there seems to be an ongoing problem with plagiarism. My guess is that most of these people just want to feel like they are doing something constructive for the Lord. They are unable to produce original work, but at the same time they do not wish to appear redundant, and so they borrow heavily without citing the source.
However, for a believer to deliberately hide the source and to take the credit for someone else's work is more than an academic or legal problem, but a spiritual one as well. Although I will rejoice even if Christ is preached by another person from a self-serving motive (Philippians 1:18), this does not mean that the person is innocent. Strive to maintain your integrity before the Lord and your credibility before men. Yes, it requires less work to exploit someone else's labor to make yourself look good, but this motive displeases the Lord, and you will end up looking very bad if you are found out.
A special warning goes to those who are students. At the beginning of the school year, many high schools and universities distribute student manuals that define plagiarism and outline the policies regarding academic misconduct. Students should observe the stated guidelines. Here I will just mention that a paraphrase — even a loose paraphrase — does not make the product your own work. Sometimes the student is just careless or lazy, but this does not excuse him, and his professor might not give him the benefit of the doubt. Some professors even use special software programs to analyze the work submitted by their students for possible cases of plagiarism. Several papers have been traced back to our materials precisely by this method.
Moreover, I urge those who use our materials to consider the welfare of their readers — if our materials are good enough to be plagiarized, then perhaps they are also good enough to be read as they are. Citing the source will help people locate these materials. Give them a chance to read what you have read.
Our copyright policy is very generous, and we practice what we preach (1 Cor. 6:7), so it is guaranteed that we will not pursue legal actions or even openly expose and embarrass any non-excommunicated professing Christian who uses our materials dishonestly. We will rejoice as long as Christ is preached and our materials are not somehow used to exploit or deceive readers. Because immunity is thus virtually guaranteed, I expect the problem of plagiarism (or something worse) to continue. Nevertheless, keep in mind there is immunity only from me, the copyright holder, but not necessarily from observant readers and suspicious professors. In any case, I thought that I should mention the issue at least this one time. It is unlikely that I will bring it up again.
Now, more than a month ago, I mentioned some changes that are coming to this site. They are now in effect. In short, from now on I will work on major projects independently from this site, so that only other types of materials will appear here, such as sermons, short articles, devotionals, concise commentary on select passages, and "scraps" of various kinds.
This also means that there will no longer be daily updates. However, I still recommend that you check on this site regularly. For some, it might be more convenient to use a RSS feed reader. Or, you may use our email subscription to receive updates — this service is not perfect, and there is a delay (you receive the email about 24 hours after it appears on the site), but it is generally reliable.
Also, if you are new to this ministry, you should know that most of our materials are not on this site (www.vincentcheung.com), but are on the PDF files distributed at www.rmiweb.org. Please take a look and see if there is anything there that interests you.
Thanks for your readership and support.
Commentary on First Peter (129)
1 PETER 5:12-14
With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love.
Peace to all of you who are in Christ.
I have already said something about Silas (v. 12) and Babylon (v. 13) in the Introduction of this commentary. Now that we have reached the conclusion of this letter, we should make sure that we grasp its purpose and message. We could go back and distill all the details of this letter into a brief statement, but this is unnecessary because Peter does it for us as part of verse 12. Therefore, we shall direct our attention to it as we conclude this commentary.
He writes, "I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it."
He says that he has been "encouraging" his readers. The word also refers to admonition and exhortation. Indeed, the letter is full of admonitions and exhortations, encouraging them to persevere in faith toward God and in holiness before men in the face of persecution and hardship. These exhortations are repeatedly illustrated by the example of Christ's suffering. And the readers' hope and confidence are reinforced by the Lord's exaltation.
Then, he says that he has been "testifying" to his readers that "this is the true grace of God." The letter constitutes an apostolic attestation that these readers have received the true message of the gospel and that this message is a true revelation of divine grace (1:3-13). Thus rather than letting difficult circumstances cause them to waver from their position, to instill fear into their minds, or to intimidate them in any way, they are to "stand fast" in this revelation of grace.
Therefore, even though they must suffer for a little while, peace belongs to all of them because they are in Christ Jesus.
Commentary on First Peter (128)
Nevertheless, for us to cast all our cares upon him does not mean that we must become spiritually passive. Proceeding to verse 8, Peter hastens to say, "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." The RSV is better: "Be sober, be watchful," although "alert" is also fine. The idea is to maintain a clear mind and to pay attention. Why must we do this? It is because the devil, our enemy, is prowling around like a lion looking for someone to devour.
"Devil" translates diabolos. The word means "false accuser, slanderer," but in many cases it refers to that spirit or person, also called Satan, who is the chief of demons. He and his cohorts are in active rebellion against God, and are constantly at work against his people. Among other methods, his attacks can come in the forms of temptation to sin, promotion of heresy, and various cultural and political maneuverings in opposition to the gospel and the church.
In connection with the devil, the danger in theological reflection is to accord him with autonomous will and independent power. The error has been committed by every system of theology, including the Reformed tradition, which supposedly takes the pride of place in its emphasis on the sovereignty of God. The motive is the unbiblical and unnecessary motive to distance God from exercising direct control over evil. However, the result is a form of dualism. On the other hand, Scripture teaches that God's sovereignty is absolute and his influence is direct. Evil is under his active control.
The "lion" metaphor fits well with the need for Christians to "be sober, be watchful," for Satan is as a lion "looking for someone to devour." Christians must keep a clear mind so that they can recognize his strategies and pay attention so that they can notice and respond when he approaches. There is no use talking about resisting the devil's attacks if they come undetected, so the warning to be sober and watchful must come first. Those with confused and distracted minds are easy prey.
When the devil comes to attack, and he will, we are to "resist him, standing firm in the faith." Peter does not say, "Run for your lives" or "Beg for mercy." He tells the Christians to put up a fight! To resist the devil is to refuse his demands, to foil his devices, and to even seize his domains. But we do not just say, "I resist you, devil!" – a silly charismatic practice. When you want to punch someone in the face, you do not say, "I punch you in the face!" No, you punch him in the face – with your fist!
So, then, our resistance consists of countermeasures that correspond to the attack. If the devil tempts us to sin, we resist the temptation by saying "no" to it and pursue holiness instead. If he spreads strife in the church, we resist him by preaching and practicing selfless love, by rebuking the troublemakers, and even by expelling the unrepentant. If he incites slander against us, we will answer by a rational discourse and our good conduct. And if he introduces false doctrines to seduce the minds of God's people, we resist him by refuting the error and teaching the truth.
Revelation 12:11 says, "They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death." We resist and overcome the devil by our active commitment, sacrifice, and testimony (see also James 4:7 and Ephesians 6:10-18). Like this verse from Revelation, Peter does not present our resistance in individualistic or mystical terms, as is often the case in charismatic teachings. Our resistance, rather, is a corporate concern and a corporate effort, "knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world" (ESV). The Christian brotherhood around the world is undergoing the same opposition. We are in the same fight; we are not alone.
Divine support and ultimate victory are promised to believers: "And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast" (v. 10). God owes us nothing – his blessings come because of his grace, which he extends to those whom he has sovereignly "called." His "eternal glory in Christ" is contrasted with what we must suffer for "a little while" (see 2 Corinthians 4:17-18). And he is the one who will restore us, and make us strong, firm, and steadfast.
Peter appropriately concludes the main part of his letter with a doxology: "To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen" (v. 11). In all things, we must keep in mind that it is God who possesses the dominion over all things and over all times. It is him that we ought to fear, and it is to him that we make our appeals and petitions for help and deliverance in the face of persecution, entrusting all things to him and casting all our cares upon him.
Commentary on First Peter (127)
1 PETER 5:5b-11
All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.
Most of us realize that the chapter and verse numbers in our Bibles were not in the original. They were added later apart from divine inspiration, so that we should not be surprised if the chapter and verse divisions sometimes get in the way of comprehension, that is, if one pays too much attention to them.
Sometimes a new chapter begins before the final thought in the previous chapter ends. And sometimes the text heads toward a new direction while we are still in the middle of a verse. This is what happens in verse 5. The first part of this verse belongs with verses 1-4, since it addresses the "young men" in the context of Peter's discussion about elders. But the second part of verse 5 begins a new section, since Peter turns from speaking to the elders to address all the Christians.
He says, "All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another." The previous passage (5:1-5) concerns the relationship between the elders and the church. Here the focus is on the interpersonal relationships among Christians. Of course the elders are also part of "all of you," and therefore the admonition applies to them as well.
They – all the believers – are to "clothe" themselves with humility. The rare verb enkomboomai paints the picture of a slave who ties his apron over his other clothing in preparation for service, and generates a fitting metaphor for Christian humility. As for humility itself, although we have discussed it in connection with 3:8, what follows in the current passage will add to our understanding.
Believers ought to clothe themselves with humility because "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." This is a quotation from Proverbs 3:34 in the Septuagint. It is also used in James 4:6. If the proud is a reference to unbelievers in general, then the humble are the believers, and the exhortation is for Christians to remain lowly in their attitude and behavior in the midst of trying circumstances, so that God may deliver and exalt them at a time of his choosing (v. 6). The unbelievers, on the other hand, consider themselves self-sufficient and invulnerable. They see no need for repentance and humility, and mock those who believe the good news of Jesus Christ. God opposes all such people.
"Therefore," because of verse 5, "humble yourselves…under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time" (v. 6). God's "hand" is a prominent metaphor with a strong background in the Old Testament, and often refers to the operations of divine power for judgment against sinners and for the deliverance of his people (Exodus 3:19; Deuteronomy 3:24).
The image is consistent with our context. Thus by saying "humble yourselves…under God's might hand," Peter is telling his readers to submit themselves to God's providence and to entrust themselves to his judgment. The idea has already been taught in 2:23, 3:5, and 4:19. Those who humble themselves under God's hand this way will be lifted up "in due time." The theme of "humiliation to exaltation" recurs in Scripture. As Luke 14:11 says, "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (also 18:14).
Verse 7 does not begin a new sentence. "Cast" (epiripsantes) is a participle in the Greek that is dependent on the main verb "humble," and not a separate imperative. A number of translations obscure this by starting a new sentence with verse 7 (NIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT, NCV). Several translations are accurate on this point, including the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and HCSB.
For example, the ESV says, "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you." In other words, "casting all your anxieties on him" explains what it means to "humble yourselves…under the mighty hand of God." The NET Bible makes a strong connection between the two verses: "And God will exalt you in due time, if you humble yourselves under his mighty hand by casting all your cares on him because he cares for you."
As for the meaning of the word, to "cast" is to throw something upon someone or something else. It is used one other time in Luke 19:35, where it is said that the disciples "threw their cloaks on the colt." As we have said, then, to humble ourselves is to submit to God's providence, trusting in his providence and judgment. This is the opposite of someone who tightly grips on to every aspect of his life, who insists on his own way, and who believes that he can and must vindicate himself.
This particular teaching in verse 7 is taken from Psalm 55:22, where it says, "Cast your cares on the LORD and he will sustain you; he will never let the righteous fall." Peter specifies the basis of our trust as "because he cares for you." The Christian is assured that when the people are unfriendly and the circumstances are unpleasant, it is not because God is indifferent about him, or that he is too insignificant to occupy a place on the divine agenda. Consider Matthew 6:26-33. The lesson there is similar: mind your spiritual duties and entrust all things to God the Father, and he will take care of your needs (v. 33).
Commentary on First Peter (126)
A minister can exhibit Christian character in a myriad of ways. He can demonstrate a reverence for God's word in the way that he carefully dissects Scripture and submits under its teachings. And he can impart confidence in the people by the way that he declares and defends the Bible. A minister who spreads doubt and rebellion should be thrown off the pulpit and out the window.
A minister can demonstrate boldness by the way that he affirms "Jesus is Lord" in the face of persecution. He exhibits true manliness by the way that he respects and cherishes his wife. He shows people what compassion is by the way he attends to the sick and the poor, and what humility means by the way he cheerfully scrubs the church floor along with the young volunteers.
A minister's life is full of opportunities. These are opportunities to show people that, "Yes, someone can believe this good news and live this life – all of it. Yes, faith can be strong, bold, and ever-increasing. Christian compassion can be deep, sincere, and enduring. Yes, someone can really believe this way, live this way, feel this way. I do, and you can too, for this is Christ's legacy to you."
And when Christ "the Chief Shepherd" appears, Peter adds, the elders "will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away" (v. 4). This "unfading crown (stephanos)" (NASB) might be a contrast against the victor's crown given to the winner of public games. It is a wreath made of laurel leaves, which soon wither. Thus elsewhere Paul writes, "Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever" (1 Corinthians 9:25). Non-Christians toil for a fading reward, but Christians labor for a glory that will endure forever.
Although a minister's life is characterized by service and sacrifice, and although he is not to lord it over God's people, this is not to say that his influence comes from his example alone. Rather, Scripture grants him genuine authority to command obedience from the people. As Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."
Accordingly, Peter writes in verse 5, "Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older." The word for "older" is the same one translated "elders" (presbyteros) in verse 1, and should also be translated thus in this context, especially since there is no indication for a change in subject. Here Peter addresses the "young men" or "younger men" in particular, perhaps due to the fact that they lack the gravity and the insight of those who are more spiritually mature. They are more likely to act out of pride, idealism, and foolish audacity. This can generate a great deal of trouble in a world that is hostile against the faith. Thus a special call to submit under the elders is in order. The rest of the church, of course, is not exempt.